Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Syt]

Putin reminding Kazakhstan who's boss:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/kazakhstan-russian-neighbour-putin-chilly-nationalist-rhetoric

Kazakhstan is latest Russian neighbour to feel Putin's chilly nationalist rhetoric

As Obama reassures Baltic states of Nato's protection, Kazakhs wonder if they will follow Ukraine, Chechnya and Georgia

Barack Obama leaves Washington on Tuesday for the small Baltic state of Estonia on Russia's north-western border to reassure the vulnerable country that it is safe within Nato from Vladimir Putin's clutches.

En route to Wales for a Nato summit that Putin, in Ukraine, has transformed into the most important such gathering since the end of the cold war, Obama will reiterate the alliance's '"all-for-one and one-for-all" defence pledges of Nato's article five commitments, seeking to assuage Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish and Romanian fears of revisionist Kremlin regional ambitions.

Putin's campaign in Ukraine, his seizure of Crimea and his invasion of eastern the country have the Baltic states and Poland in told-you-so mood. They have been clamouring for years for greater commitments from the west and voicing their suspicions of Russia. Ukraine has vindicated their angst, but generated an ambivalent response in the rest of Europe, including in the east where the Czechs, Slovaks, and Hungarians are much more inclined to give Putin the benefit of the doubt.

About one in four Estonians are ethnic Russians or native Russian-speakers, a bigger proportion than in Ukraine, where Putin justified his actions by referring to the defence of Russophones and ethnic Russians. Latvia, where about 30% are ethnic Russians, feels similarly exposed to Putin's summoning of Russian nationalism.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary general of Nato, told the Guardian last week: "Obviously some of our member states are very concerned that the Russians say they reserve their right to intervene in other countries if they consider it necessary to protect the interests of Russian-speaking populations in other countries. Obviously, that creates a lot of concern among the allies."

But it is in the south, not in the north-west, that the chilly blast of Putin's rhetoric is being felt, far away from Europe and from Nato.

In little-noticed remarks last week, he called into question the legitimacy of the post-Soviet state of Kazakhstan while ordering the Kazakhs to be on their best behaviour when it came to serving Russian interests.

The remarks, to an audience of young people in Russia on Friday, sent shock waves through the central Asian republic, which also hosts a large ethnic Russian minority centred in the north on the Russian border.

Putin said there had never been a country called Kazakhstan, that the republic was purely the product of the current president, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

"I am confident that a majority of its population supports development of close ties with Russia," said Putin. "Nazarbayev is a prudent leader, even the most prudent in the post-Soviet space. He would never act against the will of his country's people."

Kazakhstan, he said, was "part of the large Russian world that is part of the global civilisation in terms of industry and advanced technologies. I am confident that that's the way things are going to be in the medium – and long-term."

Nazarbayev had "done a unique thing. He created a state in a territory that had never had a state before. The Kazakhs had no statehood."

When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, it left 25 million Russians in new countries on Russia's rim, – what Moscow calls the "near abroad". Putin, who has called the USSR's collapse the 20th century's greatest tragedy, although it was seen in most of the "captive" countries as a liberation, has played the ethnic card to stir up trouble, justified his actions in the name of the defence of Russians, and generally displayed a proprietorial attitude towards Russia's neighbours, using trade and energy as weapons to get them to toe the line.

Ukraine is his third war in the post-Soviet space. He crushed the Chechen rebellion. He invaded Georgia and still controls two chunks of it. He now controls tracts of Ukraine. Russia has long held on to the Transnistria slice of Moldova.

Nazarbayev was unimpressed by Putin's views on Kazakh statehood and threatened to loosen ties with Russia, which could provoke a forceful Kremlin reaction.

"Our independence is our dearest treasure, which our grandfathers fought for," Nazarbayev said. "First of all, we will never surrender it to someone, and secondly, we will do our best to protect it ... Kazakhstan will not be part of organisations that pose a threat to our independence."

Unlike Ukraine and Kazakhstan, the Baltic states are members of both the European Union and Nato.

Rasmussen insisted that any attack on a Baltic member state would be met not only with national forces but would be confronted by international Nato forces.

It is unlikely to come to that. But exploiting Estonia or Latvia's ethnic minorities, choking the states by cutting off energy, provocations and destabilisation attempts supported by well-orchestrated propaganda – what Nato officials call "hybrid warfare" after Putin's successful tactics in Ukraine – might leave the west labouring to respond.

Nato alone could not deal with Putin's tactics, Rasmussen admitted.

"You see a sophisticated combination of traditional warfare and disinformation campaigns. This is not only a Nato issue. When it comes to hybrid warfare, we will need more than Nato to counter this."

[Tamas]

 

[Berkut]

Sure is a good thing military spending and things like NATO are unnecessary dinosaurs that can largely be ignored.

Europe should cut defense spending some more.

[Ed Anger]

Sure is a good thing military spending and things like NATO are unnecessary dinosaurs that can largely be ignored.

Europe should cut defense spending some more.

This will make you feel better:

August 31, 2014: The recent ISIL (al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria) misbehavior (mass murder and so on) in Syria and Iraq has caused a public uproar in Europe and generated demands that NATO send forces to try and stop all the killing. The German government responded on August 20th with a pledge to send weapons to the Kurds who are fighting ISIL in northern Iraq. But Germany was reluctant to send warplanes or troops. A few days later a German Defense Ministry readiness report was leaked and it made it clear why even getting weapons to the Kurds would be difficult. The report showed that only 8 percent of 109 Eurofighter (similar to the U.S. F-15), 11 percent of 67 CH-53 transport helicopters, and 10 percent of 33 NH90 helicopters were fully operational (not sidelined for upgrades, repairs or other problems.) However 38 percent of 56 C-160 twin turboprop transports were available. This made it possible to fly some weapons into northern Iraq, but not much else. Normally a combat ready military has at least half, and more normally over 70 percent of its warplanes ready to go. While this situation shocked many, those who have followed European military trends since the 1980s were not surprised.

[Tamas]

and we wonder why Putin is so aggressive. There is no army in Europe ready to slow him down.

[Berkut]

Not even remotely surprising.

The rather incredible decline in readiness and basic support among a lot of the NATO militaries has been a source of concern for over a decade now. The US has been bitching about it almost constantly.

That being said, having 10 our of over 100 of your front line combat aircraft capable of operations is, and should be, grossly embarrassing.

Even ignoring actual procurement funding, many of the NATO nations have not at all met their obligations to even keep their pathetic shells of a military operational. We saw this in the Libya conflict, were countries involved had to come to the US for simple ammunition after just a few weeks.

And people keep bleating on about how NATO should not fear Russia. The Russians might have a fraction of the economy of NATO, but they can, apparently, send some troops around and actually have them get their with ammunition, fuel, and weapons. Which is more than can be said for much of NATO.

There is no way around it - Europe *must* recognize that they fucked up and let their military degrade way too much, and there isn't a fix for it that doesn't involve them spending money. And probably more money than it would have cost to just keep it in shape to begin with.

[Berkut]

and we wonder why Putin is so aggressive. There is no army in Europe ready to slow him down.

That is silly, there is no way Russia can know how weak most of NATO has become. We all know only the hated Americans do contemptible things like intelligence gathering.

Putin, I am sure, has no idea just how weak and incapable of meaningful response much of NATO has become...

[DGuller]

  Soviet Union is dead, move on already.

[DontSayBanana]

Soviet Union is dead, move on already.

Problem is, so are the European defenses.  It's like the biggest cripple fight in the world.

[KRonn]

Soviet Union is dead, move on already.

Problem is, so are the European defenses.  It's like the biggest cripple fight in the world.

Ah, so sad how poor the military machines of NATO have become. Oh how the mighty have fallen. 

[derspiess]

There is no way around it - Europe *must* recognize that they fucked up and let their military degrade way too much, and there isn't a fix for it that doesn't involve them spending money. And probably more money than it would have cost to just keep it in shape to begin with.

Yeah, they won't.

[alfred russel]

Not sure I understand why NATO defense spending has been shown to be inadequate...even if NATO quadrupled defense spending, it isn't as though it would be going to war with Russia over Ukraine.

As it is, NATO defense spending is some multiple of Russia's anyway.

[CountDeMoney]

Putin, I am sure, has no idea just how weak and incapable of meaningful response much of NATO has become...

The unfortunate hamstringer for NATO is its very strength:  the nuclear deterrent.  Unfortunately, having nothing of a credible conventional capability between "strong letter to follow" and "full attack conference" is that it allows for absolutely no graduated response in a crisis that leads to direct conflict.  There's no room built into the equation for time in developing a political resolution.

If the Russians try to march to Riga, our options are limited.  Which is why I said earlier in the thread, if he moves on NATO, that's the whole ballgame.  Hopefully the nuclear battlefield would be restricted to eastern Europe, but it is established doctrine that strikes on Russian soil would require in-turn retaliation.

If Putin believes that his actions would result in 1) nothing, or 2) a nuclear response, that's a high risk/high reward roll of the dice I believe he'd make.  Is Riga or Warsaw worth Paris, London or New York?

[Berkut]

Not sure I understand why NATO defense spending has been shown to be inadequate...even if NATO quadrupled defense spending, it isn't as though it would be going to war with Russia over Ukraine.

False dilemna.

If European NATO countries had a viable military, perhaps Putin wouldn't be so confident that he could defy them.

And "going to war with Russia" is hardly the only other option.

As it is, NATO defense spending is some multiple of Russia's anyway.

And yet Russia can actually move troops around and invade their neighbors, while Germany cannot keep even 1/4th of their fighters in the air...

[CountDeMoney]

Germans never do anything in moderation.

Maybe they should shit on their planes.